Combing the Net – 6/22/2012

Why Women Still Can’t Have It All — A long but worthwhile article by Anne-Marie Slaughter, who left a high-powered “foreign policy dream job” on Hilary Clinton’s staff in order to be able to spend more time with her children. She calls for women to have a more nuanced and realistic idea of what it means to “have it all” in the first place. (HT: Anne Thurmond on Facebook)

Women of my generation have clung to the feminist credo we were raised with, even as our ranks have been steadily thinned by unresolvable tensions between family and career, because we are determined not to drop the flag for the next generation. But when many members of the younger generation have stopped listening, on the grounds that glibly repeating “you can have it all” is simply airbrushing reality, it is time to talk.

I still strongly believe that women can “have it all” (and that men can too). I believe that we can “have it all at the same time.” But not today, not with the way America’s economy and society are currently structured

How Your View of God Shapes Your View of the Economy — This is a fascinating sociological study which surveyed Americans to find correlations between theological beliefs and economic beliefs. I have no doubt that there is a strong correlation (theology absolutely affects everything in our lives!), but I’m not sure the researcher understands why there is a correlation. For instance, he writes: “Because evangelicals assert that you alone are responsible for your eternal salvation, it makes sense that the individual is also responsible for his or her economic salvation without government assistance, especially if God is the only assistance you really need.” While many professing believers do believe that are “alone” responsible for their eternal salvation, this is certainly not the belief of all, or even most, evangelicals. My free market convictions are absolutely tied to my religious convictions, but for very different (and almost opposite) reasons.

Is Barack Obama a Christian? — Owen Strachen excerpts two articles from Christianity Today which address this question; one writer arguing affirmatively, the other (Strachen) concluding that the President is not an orthodox Christian but a proponent of theological Liberalism… which as J. Gresham Machen made clear, is something else entirely.

“Why does your food look different in advertising than what is in the store?” A McDonald’s marketing director gives a very helpful answer to this question. (HT: Challies)

Combing the Net – 5/3/2012

Warrior in Chief — This editorial from The New York Times makes the case that Barack Obama is not the peacenik he’s often portrayed to be, but rather one of the most militarily aggressive presidents in American history. Ironically, I suspect that many on the far-right would applaud this quote had it come from any mouth but Obama’s:

“I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince Al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man, and the limits of reason.”

Libertarian Leanings of Young Voters Dampen Obama’s Appeal — If Obama’s re-election hinges on young voters, he may be in trouble thanks to the rise of Libertarianism.

Men In Black: The Secret Service Photographed — A photo essay from TIME magazine.

What All Teachers Should Learn From Jazz-Band Teachers — This neuroscientist believes that schools could benefit from teaching all subjects much in the same way that good jazz educators teach. He makes a lot of great points, but here are two favorite quotes:

How well a student has learned jazz is public knowledge. They can’t hide. What you know and can do is on public display, all the time in practice sessions with fellow band members and, of course, in public performances. In marked contrast, it is against the law for teachers in other subject areas to reveal grades on individual performance, even within the more private area of the classroom. The belief system in education these days is that you should not allow an unprepared and under-performing student to be embarrassed. What dingbat policy maker came up with that? I know; it comes from the perverse politically correct movement that ignores the reality that self-esteem needs to be earned…

Unlike traditional education, where the goal is to meet minimum standards on state-mandated tests, jazz band directors make very clear their high expectations that everybody in each band class should become as proficient as they can. The whole point of their teaching is mastery and excellence. They expect excellence and they get it, as witnessed by festival performances such as I saw. Thanks to the unenlightened thinking of No Child Left Behind law, our public education has degenerated into “No Child Pushed Forward.”

Doan-Fisher Friendship Bigger Than Hockey — A few days ago I posted a video from TSN about the faith of Nashville Predators’ forward Mike Fisher. Now, ESPN has also published a faith-related article, looking at the friendship between Fisher and Phoenix Coyotes’ captain Shane Doan.

I would have loved to be at the Nashville Predators game last night, not just to see them pull off a great win, but also to see Charlie Daniels tearing up the band stage during the intermissions! (HT: OTF)

Ron Paul’s Interview With Christianity Today

It’s very rare for Dr. Paul to speak about his faith, so I was thrilled to see this interview by Sarah Pulliam Bailey for Christianity Today. I found his answers to be very refreshing, compared with how most politicians seem to try to speak around the complicated intersection of faith & politics. Some highlights:

• “How can your faith be divorced from your everyday living?”
• “I”m not a hyphenated Christian.”
• “Biblically and historically, the government was very uninvolved in marriage. I like that. I don’t know why we should register our marriage to the federal government. I think it’s a sacrament. I think it should be biblical, and politically I don’t like to fight with people who disagree with me, as long as they don’t force their views on me. “
• “If you substitute the government for the family, this is a detriment.”
• On whether schools should teach creation or evolution: ”This demonstrates the fallacy of a government-run educational system. I think this issue of how the world came about is a spiritual, religious, scientific discussion. It should be totally out of the realm of the government. Why do we have to dwell on this? I think it’s the results of the state-run schools. The argument is, who’s going to dictate the criteria? I think right now Christians are going to lose this fight, because we deferred… Are we as Christians going to dictate every single religious belief in our schools? Or should it be those who are the secularists who say that it’s insane to believe in a creator? The whole fight is a result of depending on the king to explain to us exactly what we’re supposed to believe in.”

For more on Ron Paul and faith, check out Christian Perspectives on Ron Paul. Be sure to also check out his latest book, Liberty Defined (here’s my review), in which Paul clearly articulates his position on many topics that are important to Christian (and all other) voters.

Book Review: Republocrat

“Republocrat: Confessions of a Liberal Conservative” by Carl Trueman

If you’re looking for a book that will re-affirm what you already believe about politics, this book will be a disappointment. Carl Trueman knows that, and he doesn’t care. “I am simply delighted that I will disappoint so many different groups of people in such a comprehensive manner,” he writes in the introduction.

And he’s right. Nearly every group of people will find some complaint with Trueman’s arguments. The Liberal Left hates his stance on hot button issues like abortion and gay marriage. The Religious Right frowns on his refusal to walk the Republican party line. Libertarians reject his insistence that nationalized health care and welfare programs are not incompatible with liberty and the free market.

Perhaps those most off-put by this book will be the politically apathetic, who cry “can’t we all just get along?” while steering clear of argument and conviction. If there is one thing Trueman makes crystal clear, it is that if we care about the world and the people around us — and as Christians, this is non-negotiable — we must care about politics.

Few, if any, will find wholesale agreement with Trueman’s political views. He is prone to overstate his case (which he himself admits in the book), and is intentionally provocative. He sets up strawmen and rips them apart. Surprisingly, all of these factors work together to hammer home the central theses of the book, “that conservative Christianity does not require conservative politics or conservative cultural agendas” and that Christians need a much more nuanced understanding of politics and political issues than is typical in today’s America, when aesthetics (the character and rhetoric of politicians and pundits) have replaced discourse and debate is framed as a Manichean struggle of good versus evil in which candidates and parties must be either totally right or totally wrong.

The intensely logical Carl Trueman knows exactly what he’s doing when he resorts to the use of logical fallacies. He wants readers to disagree with him. He wants to roil American Christians out of our comfort with the system of “politics-as-usual” that we’ve grown up with  (Trueman immigrated to the United States from England about ten years ago). This is a good thing. We need to be roiled, and his status as an outsider (not to mention his lack of hesitancy to engage in confrontation) gives Trueman a unique position to do it.

Besides a general encouragement to pick up this book and read it (which will only take an hour or two, as the entire thing is only 110 pages), I have just a few comments on the actual content of the book. While Trueman’s trenchant critique of American politics begins with the Left — and he is brutal in his condemnation of the modern Liberal agenda — much of the book is aimed directly at the political heart of conservative Christians who identify themselves with the Republican party. This is not necessarily because he aligns himself more with today’s Democrats, but because his intended audience is conservative Christians, and the reality is that most of these also consider themselves politically conservative. Thus, he spends the bulk of his time addressing the particular weaknesses of this audience.

What most interested me was his description of the plight of the “Old Liberal”, which is how he describes himself. Old liberals used to be those who concerned themselves most with improving the condition of the poor, something that was close to his own heart as a Christian. Over time, however, with the utter failure of Marxism as an all-encompassing political system based on the welfare of the economically oppressed, Liberals began to mesh their ideas about poverty and oppression with Freud’s psychoanalysis, leading to a redefinition of oppression. Now, instead of being primarily concerned with aiding the poor, the “New Left” exists to promote the agenda of those who define their own victimhood (women who believe abortion is a right, homosexuals who want to marry, etc). Democrats still promote themselves as the party of the working class, but these social issues are of little concern to those who struggle to provide for their families, and often clash with the values of the average poor person.

While I personally believe that conservative fiscal policies and free markets can be most beneficial to the poor, Dr. Trueman’s question is a valid one for discussion. Who is now the advocate for the economically oppressed? Where do those whose primary political concern is the condition of the poor turn?

On the negative side, Trueman is at his overstated best (or worst) in devoting an entire chapter to Fox News. While you’d be hard pressed to find a conservative who thinks less of Fox News and pundits like Glenn Beck than I do, even I think this assault on Fox is a bit over-the-top. Yes, conservative Christians tend to have a very unhealthy attachment to Hannity, O’Reilly, and company. Yes, the belief that Fox is in any way “the unbiased news channel” is absolutely ridiculous (and deserves to be ridiculed). Yes, Rupert Murdoch is a sleazy and unscrupulous businessman who knows pandering to the Religious Right makes him a lot of easy dollars. But Trueman could easily have made these points in much less than the twenty pages he devotes to them. He accuses the Left of having “lost all sense of proportion with regard to what is and is not of most pressing importance,” but surely the same can be said of an author who devotes 2o% of his book to the faults of a single news organization.

It can be maddening to read at times, but this book will make you think. It is not likely to cause anyone to totally change his mind about any important issues, or to radically change her political philosophy. But hopefully it will help to start a discussion we’ve needed for a long time. As he writes, “politics is an art, not a science“. Like any art, politics deserves careful consideration, interaction, and debate. And, just as people will have different preferences and appreciations for art, there is no reason to believe that all Christians must hold exactly the same position on every political issue. It is okay for Christians to disagree about the best way to further God’s Kingdom (just ask Paul and Barnabas) and to live as citizens in  a fallen world. In the end, God will be glorified. In the meantime, healthy debate and civil discourse make us all better.

Read this book. You’ll be glad you did. Buy it here.

Here is a trailer for the book, followed by Dr. Trueman’s own summary of it:

Book Review: Christianity and Liberalism

“Christianity and Liberalism” by J. Gresham Machen

Today, when most Americans consider the word “liberalism”, we think of a political philosophy or party. In the late 19th and into the early 20th century, however, there was a movement within the Protestant church known as Liberalism. While this religious movement does have some commonalities with political liberalism (a basic belief in man’s goodness and a strong humanitarian ethic, for instance), in their particulars they are really two very different things. It is religious Liberalism which Machen addresses in this book, which was written in 1923.

The main thrust of the Protestant Liberalism movement was a supposed focus on the work and teaching of Jesus, without holding to any dogmatic theological distinctions. In other words, liberals believed that Jesus was the highest moral example for men to follow, and that we should do what he did: Care for the poor, promote peace, and preach a message of love. Doing these things, says the liberal, promotes the betterment of society, but does not require any belief in the supernatural. The Bible is treated as a moral guidebook, but is not the inerrant Word of God. The Biblical claims of Jesus’ virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, and bodily resurrection from the dead are regarded with skepticism, but are ultimately seen as unimportant relative to the practical application of Jesus’ teachings.

Machen’s main premise is that Liberalism is completely antithetical to Christianity. He then proceeds to lay out an incredible defense of orthodox Protestantism, comparing it at each point with the Liberalism that had gained so much popularity in the churches of that time.

He begins the discussion with an overview of why doctrine is so important, and why inerrancy is non-negotiable to anyone who claims to be a Christian. After all, if the Bible is not true, we have no basis for believing anything about Jesus. If it is true, then we must believe everything it says about Him. Furthermore, the liberal’s claim to hold only to Jesus’ words and deeds is inconsistent with their denial of the supernatural, because Jesus made several indisputable claims to deity (as well as to the authority of Scripture). Essentially, Machen is making C.S. Lewis’ trilemma argument (“Liar, Lunatic, or Lord”) twenty years before the publication of Mere Christianity.

Machen then contrasts Christianity and Liberalism in the areas of several doctrines critical to Christian belief:

• Our understanding of who God is
• Man’s relationship with God and standing before Him
• The person and work of Christ
• What salvation is and the means by which man may attain it
• The role of the Church

Because the liberal teaching in these areas is mutually exclusive with the traditional, orthodox positions held by the Church for nearly 2,000 years (and, more importantly, given to us in God’s Word), Machen proposes that, for the sake of intellectual honesty, liberals ought to stop referring to themselves as “Christians”, and instead join or create a different religious sect that more closely aligns with their beliefs. The Christian Church was founded on certain principles, and it is dishonest to represent the Church when one does not hold to those principles. Here’s a useful analogy from the book to illustrate this point:

At the foundation of the life of every corporation is the incorporation paper, in which the objects of the corporation are set forth. Other objects may be vastly more desirable than those objects, but if the directors use the name and the resources of the corporation to pursue the other objects they are acting ultra vires of the corporation. So it is with Christianity. It is perfectly conceivable that the originators of the Christian movement had no right to legislate for subsequent generations; but at any rate they did have an inalienable right to legislate for all generations that should choose to bear the name of “Christian”.

Even more than eight decades ago, “intolerance” was a common buzzword, and a common objection to this claim of exclusivity. Machen counters this objection:

Involuntary organizations ought to be tolerant, but voluntary organizations, so far as the fundamental purpose of their existence is concerned, must be intolerant or else cease to exist.

An example of an involuntary organization is the State. Most Americans, for instance, are naturalized citizens because we were born here. Our Constitution guarantees certain liberties which require tolerance. I am free to worship as a Christian in large part because others are equally free to worship as they choose. But if I were to claim to be a Muslim (a “voluntary organization”), I would have no right to claim as a Muslim that Jesus Christ is God’s son, and that He died for my sins so that I could be adopted as God’s son and a co-heir with Christ. Muslims would be rightly intolerant of that claim, because it is contrary to their core beliefs. But of course I would never do this, and Machen suggests that Liberals extend the same courtesy to Christians. He provides a good secular example of this as well:

Suppose in a political campaign in America there be formed a Democratic club for the purpose of furthering the cause of the Democratic party. Suppose there are certain other citizens who are opposed to the tenets of the Democratic club and in opposition desire to support the Republican party. What is the honest way for them to accomplish their purpose? Plainly it is simply the formation of a Republican club which shall carry on a propaganda in favor of Republican principles. But suppose, instead of pursuing this simple course of action, the advocates of Republican principles should conceive the notion of making a declaration of conformity to Democratic principles, thus gaining an entrance into the Democratic club and finally turning its resources into an anti-Democratic propaganda. That plan might be ingenious. But is it honest? Yet it is just exactly such a plan which is adopted by advocates of a non-doctrinal religion who by subscription to a creed gain an entrance into the teaching ministry of doctrinal or evangelical churches.

The reasons liberals are unwilling to make such a break from the Christian Church are many, but one of the primary motivations is a desire to gain control of the considerable resources of evangelical churches and use them for the advancement of liberal aims. Machen issues a call for conservative Christians to uphold the Truth of the real Gospel and to stand up against the advancement of Liberalism in the Church. This is done in four ways: (1) Encouraging those evangelists and apologists who are engaged in the intellectual and spiritual struggle; (2) set a higher standard of qualifications of candidates for ministry; (3) preach the Cross of Christ at all times, to all people, in all situations; and (4) bring about a renewal of Christian education, beginning in the home.

This book is possibly even more relevant now than it was in 1923. If it weren’t for the language used, one wouldn’t know this wasn’t written last week. Liberalism is alive and well in the Church today, though it goes by many other names now. Modernism has given way to postmodernism, but the struggle is still the same. Satan has no need to introduce new lies when the old ones are working better than ever. Read it. You won’t regret it.

Buy it here. Or, since it is in the public domain, you can read it online for free. As for me, I always prefer the feel of a real book in my hands…